Cases 91 - 100 of 104
Johnson v. Mitchel et al
as 3:2009cv02604
Petitioner:
David Waylon Johnson
Respondent:
M M Mitchel and Federal Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Martin v. Mitchell
as 9:2009cv01804
Petitioner:
James Henry Leroy Martin
Respondent:
M M Mitchell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Loftin v. Mitchell
as 8:2009cv01603
Plaintiff:
Joseph Wayne Loftin
Defendant:
M M Mitchell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, Federal Filers (Bivens)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2009cv01345
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Brown v. Mitchell et al
as 0:2009cv00498
Petitioner:
Amos Brown
Respondent:
M M Mitchell and US Parole Commission
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Universal Maritime APM Termina v. M. M.
as 08-2312
Petitioner:
UNIVERSAL MARITIME APM TERMINALS and SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION
Respondent:
M. M., widow of N.M.
M. M. v. Universal Maritime APM Termina
as 08-2304
Petitioner:
M. M., widow of N.M.
Respondent:
UNIVERSAL MARITIME APM TERMINALS, SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION and DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS
David Kissi v. Paul Clement
as 08-8366
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID M. KISSI
Defendant - Appellee:
PAUL CLEMENT, et al, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, U.S., PETER J. MESSITTE, Judge and others
Kissi v. Clement et al
as 8:2008cv02273
Plaintiff:
David Kissi
Defendant:
Paul Clement, U.S. Solicitor General, Peter J. Messitte and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
James River Insurance Company v. Weinberg et al
as 3:2008cv01720
Plaintiff:
James River Insurance Company and James River Insurance Company
Defendant:
M M Weinberg, Jr and Weinberg & Brown LLC
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
